U.S. supreme court skeptical on abortion clinic buffer-zone law

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed
doubt on Wednesday about a Massachusetts law that mandates a
protective buffer zone around abortion clinics to allow patients
unimpeded access, indicating they may strike it down as
unconstitutional as demanded by anti-abortion protesters.

Challenging the 2007 law, anti-abortion activists say it
violated their freedom of speech rights under the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by preventing them from
standing on the sidewalk and speaking to people entering the
clinics.

During a one-hour argument before the high court, a majority
of the nine justices expressed concern that the law may be too
broad. One justice, Elena Kagan, asked questions indicating she
felt the size of the 35-feet (11 meter) no-entry zone for
protesters around clinics was simply too big.

A narrow ruling overturning the law as too broad could give
the state the opportunity to enact a new, less-restrictive
statute.

One of the main concerns raised by justices was the law does
nothing to distinguish between protesters seeking to disrupt a
clinic's work and people who say they wish to quietly counsel
women and try to persuade them not to have abortions.

It is not clear if the court would have the votes to go
further than striking down the Massachusetts law and possibly
overturn a 2000 Supreme Court precedent that upheld a similar
buffer-zone law in Colorado.

Of the current nine justices, five were on the bench when
that case, Hill v. Colorado, was decided.

The Massachusetts law was enacted in part because of safety
concerns highlighted by violent acts committed against abortion
providers in the past. In 1994, two abortion clinic workers were
killed outside a clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts.

Among those critical of the Massachusetts law was Kagan,
from the liberal wing of the court. At one point she noted the
Massachusetts law "does have its problems."

Kagan's main concern appeared to be the size of the buffer
zone.

"I guess I'm a little bit hung up on why you need so much
space," she told Massachusetts' lawyer, Jennifer Miller.

Justice Stephen Breyer, another of the liberal justices,
pressed Miller over whether state legislators, when debating the
law, had sought to distinguish between people who wish to
conduct "calm conversations" and those who are more disruptive.
Miller said the evidence showed that even those attempting
peaceful conversations could create congestion in front of the
facility.

'NOT A PROTEST CASE'

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members
of the court, in particular seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs
in the case, who he said should not be described as "protesters"
because they only desire to speak quietly to women entering the
clinic.

"This is not a protest case," he said. "These people don't
want to protest abortion. They want to talk to women who are
about to get abortions and try to talk them out of it."

The zone "might not be so bad" if it addressed only
protesters, Scalia added.

Along similar lines, Justice Anthony Kennedy told Miller
that when enacting laws that restrict one type of speech, "you
have a duty to protect speech that is lawful."

Scalia and Kennedy were both in the minority in the 2000
Colorado case.

Not all the justices appeared as skeptical about the
Massachusetts law.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg focused mainly on the history of
violence at abortion clinics and previous state efforts to stop
disruptions, which the state says had not worked.

She noted that the state "doesn't know in advance who are
the well-behaved people and who are the people who won't behave
well."

Ginsburg and Breyer were both in the majority in the 2000
case.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who was a dissenter in the 2000
case and would be expected to hold similar views now, did not
speak during the argument, as is his custom. Chief Justice John
Roberts, who was not on the bench when the earlier case was
decided, said nothing as well.

The case specifically concerns people who want to protest
outside three Planned Parenthood facilities that offer abortions
in addition to other health services for women in Boston,
Springfield and Worcester.

Two other states, Montana and Colorado, have similar laws.
Municipal ordnances and court injunctions have also been used in
various states to create similar buffer zones.